(03-10-2014 09:41 AM)cjlr Wrote: Even a vary narrow outbreak would have serious consequences.

A disruption of transportation infrastructure for just a couple days (ie, a minimal lockdown and case isolation) would be economically chaotic - not to mention that perhaps the biggest issue is in the panic-driven responses of many people.

Doubt that will happen. Ebola isn't the easiest to spread and can get isolated very quickly. Only reason it's affecting so much of Africa is because of Africa not being well developed healthcare wise. When they brought back those other people that had it they got taken care of quickly. All they need to do is screen people coming from infected places overseas and it won't cause too much trouble for us.

Ebola apparently is roughly about as contagious as Hepatitis C...

You can never be 100% thorough when it comes to screening. Screening passengers coming from the affected area is obviously a very good way of doing it. But you can't guarantee that someone won't fly from Liberia, to an area with no restrictions, and then on to Europe or America...

(03-10-2014 12:29 PM)Sam Wrote: You can never be 100% thorough when it comes to screening. Screening passengers coming from the affected area is obviously a very good way of doing it. But you can't guarantee that someone won't fly from Liberia, to an area with no restrictions, and then on to Europe or America...

Indeed.

(03-10-2014 10:51 AM)cjlr Wrote: Okay. Do you screen someone from Guinea? There are no direct flights from Conakry. Do you screen someone from Lagos, in case they're connecting from Conakry?

Do you screen someone from Paris, in case they're connecting from Lagos?